SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

274 read with\nsection 271(1)(c) along with the assessment order, there was no\nmention of the ground of satisfaction of the Learned. Assessing Officer\nfor which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated. Then relevant notice has\nbeen scanned above. In the absence of specific mention of any charge\nof concealment, the satisfaction noted in the assessment order

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

274. Read with Section 271 of the IT Act, 1961.\nWhereas in the course of proceedings before me for the Assessment Year 2012-\n13. It appears to me that you have: -\nRead With Section\n271(1)(c) concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of\nincome.\"\nTherefore, there is no specific charge by the Assessing officer. Further

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

274. Read with Section 271 of the IT Act, 1961.\nWhereas in the course of proceedings before me for the Assessment Year 2012-\n13. It appears to me that you have: - Read With Section\n271(1)(c) concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of\nincome.\"\nTherefore, there is no specific charge by the Assessing officer. Further

MANGI LAL KANDOI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

274 of the Act indicates that the imposition of penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory but directory. Therefore, the finding of the Learned CIT(A) is not correct. 15. Conclusion - In view of the aforesaid discussion and various case laws cited above it is humbly requested that penalty in this case may not be levied because

RAJ KUMARI MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DY CIT, CC-II, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

274 read with Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act) to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal

SUBHASH SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal

JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 43(1). Appellant prays that depreciation was charged as per past prevalent practice under bonafide belief and claim so made by assessee, does not ipso facto amounts to under reporting and by no means same amounts to misreporting of income. Appellant prays that all the particulars of income were fully disclosed in Return of Income itself, therefore penalty

JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 43(1). Appellant prays that depreciation was charged as per past prevalent practice under bonafide belief and claim so made by assessee, does not ipso facto amounts to under reporting and by no means same amounts to misreporting of income. Appellant prays that all the particulars of income were fully disclosed in Return of Income itself, therefore penalty

RAJASTHAN STATE MINES & MINERALS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

section 43B. In view of the mandate of clause (a) of section 47 ITA No. 253/JP/2015 along with 13 other appeals. M/s Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd. 43B of the Act, we do not see any reason to interfere into the order of the Ld. CIT(A), same is hereby affirmed, the ground of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavvaibhav Global Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम Jaipur. Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacv4679F

274 read with Section 271(l)(c) of the Act for concealment / furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 4 A.Y.2016-17 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee is carrying on the business of manufacturing and export of gold jewellery studded with precious and semi-precious stones. It filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.28

SCHOLAR'S EDUCATION TRUST OF INDIA,602-A, TRIMURTY DAVE APARTMENT, JAI SINGH HIGHWAY MARG, BANI PARK, JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

Bench: The Cit(A), The Power Exercised By Him U/S 263 For Disallowing The Donation Paid To Other Society Would Not Fall In The Ambit Of Section 263. 3. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Finding Given By Ld. Cit That Once Exemption U/S 11 Is Withdrawn, Not Disallowing The Scholar’S Education Trust Of India Vs. Cit(E)

section 263. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding given by Ld. CIT that once exemption u/s 11 is withdrawn, not disallowing the Scholar’S Education Trust of India vs. CIT(E) donation of Rs. 1,83,60,000/- in computing the total income has made the assessment order passed by AO as erroneous & prejudicial

SYLVAN GREENS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 43 applicable, excess depreciation provided by Rs 10,77,958/- only on the basis of suspicious without making any enquiry from the assessee. The 30 ITA NO.414.JPR/2025 SYLVAN GREEN PRIVATE LTD VS DCIT,CIRCLE-6 , JAIPUR nature of subsidy received by the assessee is in the form of VAT Exemption given by the Himachal Pradesh State Government

M/S CENTURY INFRA POWER P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs. 8,42,792/- and therefore, as against the returned income of Rs. 3,89,66,220/-, the assessed income was determined at Rs 3,89,66,220/- by passing an order 3 M/s Century Infra Power P. Ltd., Jaipur Vs. DCIT, Jaipur u/s 143(3) read with section 144C

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 5.5. The appellant submitted that the AO has satisfied himself that appellant had taken accommodation entry in the shape of unsecured loans. The appellant submitted that it raised objections before AO against such reasons wherein it was categorically contended that appellant had not taken any unsecured loans from any of the party mentioned

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereinafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year)." (Emphasis supplied) What is clear from the above provision is that once assessment is reopened for bringing to tax any income that escaped assessment in terms

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

sections of Mulla's Principles of Mohammedan\nLaw including sec. 268 and submitted that in the circumstances of the case it must be\npresumed that the three ladies were the legally wedded wives of the respondent. The law\nhas not changed since the original assessments were made and it was open to the\nIncome Tax Officer to make that presumption

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

sections of Mulla's Principles of Mohammedan\nLaw including sec. 268 and submitted that in the circumstances of the case it must be\npresumed that the three ladies were the legally wedded wives of the respondent. The law\nhas not changed since the original assessments were made and it was open to the\nIncome Tax Officer to make that presumption

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Section 40A(3) of the Act. The CIT(A) had rightly deleted separate addition made by the AO u/s 40A(3) of the Act. CIT vs. G.K. Contractor,19 DTR 305; CIT vs. PravinAnd Co. 274 ITR 534; Choudhary Bros in ITA No. 1177/JP/2010 vide order dated 31-05-2010; CIT vs. BanwariLal Banshidhar, 229 ITR 229(Raj.), relied